1) Why is the answer B and not C? Please explain.

A worker at a petrochemical plant was severely burned when a pipe carrying hot oil exploded. The worker brought a negligence action against the company that manufactured and installed the pipe. At trial, the worker established what happened and the injuries he suffered. He also presented evidence that the pipe burst because it had corroded at a higher than normal rate, which according to testimony of the worker's experts indicated a defect in the manufacture of the pipe. At the close of the worker's case, the manufacturer moved for a directed verdict. How should the COurt rule? A. Deny the motion, because the pipe was defective and injured the worker. B. Deny the motion, because the jury could find that the premature corrosion of the pipe would not have occurred absent negligence by the manufacturer. C. Grant the motion, because the worker has not established that the manufacturer was negligent. D. Grant the motion, because the pipe was in the petrochemical plant's possession when it exploded